The overused Helvetica argument

[gato...@adobeforums.com]

Hello everyone,

Recently an article got published in a widely distributed newspaper here in Melbourne, Australia, that questioned the (over)use of Helvetica by designers as an easy/lazy/style driven choice. A particular designer was the impetus behind the article, and his stance is strongly anti-helvetica.

Firstly, whether you agree or not, I think anything that educates the public and makes designers pause and question their choices is a positive step. I've decided however, to write an essay that looks at both sides of the argument and typographic context in general.

There are quite a number of questions I want to ask to promote discussion here, but I might just start with a few and see where it goes, and anything at all people want to add is a bonus. Also, I'm sure some good quotes will come out of this, so can people include their name (and position if applicable) if they're happy for me to use their responses.

So, to start the ball rolling...

Is the overuse of Helvetica today the result of designers being 'lazy', because they know it works?

What is the greater typographic 'crime', an inappropriate typeface choice, or a safe if overused one?

[Guy_S...@adobeforums.com]

All due respect, but this topic already has been done to death, as a Google search will reveal. In my opinion, you could find more interesting and novel topics for a Typography essay.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

What Guy says. Even a search of just this forum will yield a number of discussions on Helvetica. It's very old news.

[Thomas_...@adobeforums.com]

Yup.

Personally, I'm with the camp that considers Helvetica overused. I would pretty much never use it, unless I specifically wanted to achieve a cliched or dated effect.

T

[gato...@adobeforums.com]

Damn, I'm kinda stuck with the topic now. Yes, I know it's an old one, I haven't dived into the argument before because I've never personally used Helvetica that much to warrant a detailed closer look. Always been more of a Frutiger fan myself.

Anyway, decided to see what all the fuss was about when this article was published recently (which, at least in my part of the world shows that the 'debate' rages on...at least for a small few)

If anyone cares to humour me with responses then, feel free...

I was also looking at the typographic education of designers these days, maybe I can shift the issue a bit and ask whether people think that typographic education is undervalued/inadequate at present?

[Andreas Höfeld]

<gato...@adobeforums.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:2ccdd...@webx.la2eafNXanI...

> Damn, I'm kinda stuck with the topic now. Yes, I know it's an old one, I haven't dived into the argument before
because I've never personally used Helvetica that much to warrant a detailed closer look. Always been more of a Frutiger
fan myself.

ACK. I use Helvetica only for typesetting ads from clients too lazy to bring in more than a logo and a text.
Frutiger is my favourite for beauty and legibility, and still neutral enough for any text I would set in a sans font.
Always considered Myriad as a knockoff with round i-dots ;-)

Personally, Helvetica reminds me too much of Arial ;-)))

> If anyone cares to humour me with responses then, feel free...

| Is the overuse of Helvetica today the result of designers being 'lazy', because they know it works?

Both :-) And, of course, to some extent. Lack of time or clients' viewpoints or assumed viewpoints may be other
reasons.

| What is the greater typographic 'crime', an inappropriate typeface choice, or a safe if overused one?

To that a clear and decisive "it depends". I think if you want to go into more detail think of better questions than
these "yes-and-no" ones. What you'll find will depend on what you look for.

> I was also looking at the typographic education of designers these days, maybe I can shift the issue a bit and ask
whether people think that typographic education is undervalued/inadequate at present?

Again one of these yes/no questions - you'll get no good answers for these.

Think of questions like:
- What kind of typ. knowledge do designers need today?
- How should designers start when looking for a font for a job?
- How can you train your ability to assess the quality of a font?
- What makes a font a good text font?

and so on.

Andreas

[Tra...@adobeforums.com]

Overused, overdiscussed, overrated, pretty much any word with the "over" prefix describes Hell-Vomita.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

gatorage,

Have you actually tried a search on this forum? Use "butt ugly" as key word, for instance. (Seriously.)

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

I'm gonna take a different stance, having witnessed the rise and fall of Helvetica's popularity in both metal and digital incarnations.

True, it has become the safe choice for many -- and for those who know zilch about typefaces, one could do a lot worse. And considering the overabundance of really bad choices that inundate us every day, I'll take "safe".

If the choice were to use poorly designed or inappropriate typefaces or to use Helvetica, the choice would defer to Helvetica. Yes, it's overused; it can be sterile; but it still is (contrary to some posts above) nicely designed and quite readable.

In fact, a great class assignment would be to design a particular piece, make it look good, but using only the Helvetica family.

All that being said, I think that far too little emphasis is placed in design school programs on good typography. This is plainly revealed every day in national ads for Fortune 500 companies in print and on television.

Neil

[Jeremy_...@adobeforums.com]

I come from the business community, rather than the deign community. Whilst Helvetica is not my favorite font (by a long way), I do use it. This is because the busines community is (very) comfortable with it. I have actually had conversations with Managers who dislike ANY serif fonts, and question the use of any font other than Helvetica! (The same people also tend to think double spaces after full-stops are needed for proportional fonts......).

I would not be surprised if this preference gets back to the designers. Not that they get forced to use it, but rather that they know they are unlikely to get complaints.

Jeremy

[Thomas_...@adobeforums.com]

Helvetica is legible, but not terribly readable, IMO. I would never use it for body text in any noticeable quantity.

There have been studies on the subject, and modern western readers do read text in, say, Times, faster than in Helvetica.

Regards,

T

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Another legitimate application is in catalogs, where Helvetica can be
very effective.

I should have added that, obviously, there are many other typefaces that can be equally or even more effective for this application too.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

While I dislike Times to a much lesser degree than Helvetica, I agree with Thomas re a better "ease of reading". I avoid both at all costs, as well as the unspeakable Courier.

The concepts of legibility and readability are always a potential point of contention. I have come to use legibility as shorthand for "ease of individual character recognition". Readability is a little more complicated because it depends primarily on the skills of the author of the text, but again Thomas is right in that Helvetica can have a further negative impact on readability in the sense of "ease of reading".

Anyone involved with typography is of course acutely aware of the nefarious effect of a line with too many characters and words in it, but set a ridiculously long line in Helvetica and you have a contract attorney's dream: fine print that is essentially unreadable even though the individual characters are readily recognizable.

In the course of any given month I see a large number of contracts with fine print set in 6-pt Helvetica (often even smaller) across the entire width of an 8.5" legal-size page with margins of 0.25" or less. No ordinary mortal can read and comprehend even a portion of such text.

That is a utilitarian use for Helvetica.

[gato...@adobeforums.com]

So what would people like to see change then?

Is it , very simply, a case of seeing a wider variety of more thoughtful type choices being made? And does this come back to typographic education then?

Obviously, Helvetica has a well-worn design heritage on its side, a range of weights not equaled by many other sans-serifs, and a neutrality that make it a 'safe' choice that works for a broad range of applications. Is walking down the beaten track all that bad?

[Just_A_...@adobeforums.com]

Helvetica {and Times} are the base line that everything else deviates from...

They are the "White Bread" of fonts.... Legible but nothing special...
A font that immediatly calles attention to itself should only be used for a handful of words....
Can you imagine reading an entire book set in Copperplate Gothic? Helvetica has its purpose... Many dismiss it in the same breath that they complain about everyone else overusing it...

If these fonts are so bad, why do so many Programs Install and require them?

Photoshop 6, it seems, will not run without Helvetica loaded...

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

In re: Helvetica's readability -- I agree with Thomas to the extent that there are other fonts that are more readable. And Times/Times Roman/New Times Roman, et al can be easier on the eyes in lengthy text.

But certainly one could do a lot worse than either of these two choices. (I don't think I'd like to read a 48-page contract in, say, Avant Garde, Comic Sans, or -- gasp! -- Wilhelm Klingspor Gotisch.) And part of the problem of legibility is closely related to page layout, font size, leading, tracking and kerning, column width, color, contrast, margins, etc., regardless of font used. One could significantly increase the readability of an otherwise mediocre font or decrease the readability of a great font through implementation.

A big part of today's surplus of Times and Helvetica is that they are among the very first "real" font families to be included with computers. There were just four, the other two being Courier and (I believe) Palatino yielding a choice of 13 (when you consider the bf, ital, bf ital variants). The former two have become very well entrenched in the business environment as a result. It would take some desperate moves within the industry to eradicate them.

Neil

[Thomas_...@adobeforums.com]

The original four typefaces in PostScript were Times, Helvetica, Courier and Symbol (13 fonts). This got expanded soon after to 35 fonts, which included Palatino.

T

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

As a corollary, the reason that many programs have those fonts as default is precisely because it's widely assumed everybody has them and they were widely distributed for free.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

If these fonts are so bad, why do so many Programs Install and require
them?

The original four typefaces in PostScript were Times, Helvetica, Courier

and Symbol (13 fonts). This got expanded soon after to 35 fonts, which
included Palatino.

The culprits were the folks responsible for introducing laser printing to desktop publishing, Apple, Canon, Adobe, or someone peripherally connected with them.

Rather than direct you to a long post I left on this subject in a different forum, I'll just quote the pertinent part here. This is how it has been related to me from various sources over the years:

The free fonts, including the "standard" ones bundled with text printers, are normally typefaces that the novice user doesn't even know how to apply or why they are there.

That's actually an interesting story. It was Apple that introduced, together with Adobe and Canon, desktop laser printing, and...

...when the first desktop printers were being designed and built, Canon and others simply called up type foundries and inquired what their "best selling" typefaces were, without going into further details. That's how "Times", "Helvetica" and "Courier" got to become a standard, unfortunately. From the typographer's point of view, they were extremely poor choices.

Times, an English typeface produced specifically for the Times of London in the 1920' s, was and is designed to look best in narrow newspaper columns. Now we see it in countless abominably looking documents like letters, memos and even books in way-too-long lines. Used in this fashion, it has a horrible typographic color and is not very readable (as opposed to just "legible" or recognizable) because it yields too many words per line.

Of course Times was a runaway best seller at type foundries in the last three quarters of the 20th century, because countless newspapers bought it to set their narrow newspaper columns.

Then there was Helvetica. Designed primarily for catalogs and signage, it was also a big seller at traditional (non-digital) type foundries. Set in regular text it is utterly unreadable. Paragraphs set in 8-pt (and smaller) Helvetica are the absolute darlings of attorneys looking to bury the meaning of contract clauses in "fine print".

Even worse was the unspeakably awkward Courier, in my estimation the ugliest typeface ever designed in the history of mankind. Its design parameters called for a typeface to be used in typewriters in such a way that the letters would not cut through the copies and carbon paper when typing, that the gunk generated by the typewriter's ribbon would not clog up the small closed spaces in letters like p, b, d, a, e, etc. None of those characteristics were even remotely relevant to its use in computers and laser printing. Yet, because only information on sales volumes were demanded from the type foundries, Courier ended up being chosen without regard to the reason for the foundries' production levels, namely the gazillion metal letters being produced for inclusion in typewriters.

The end result is a massive, grotesque misuse of these three fonts by the uninitiated and badly misled public. It's no surprise that they are so commonly provided for free.

[Tra...@adobeforums.com]

The end result is a massive, grotesque misuse of these three fonts by the uninitiated and badly misled public. It's no surprise that they are so commonly provided for free.

Ramon,

Brilliant explanation. Brief and right to the point. Bravo! I thank you.

[Alexander_Kogan.@adobeforums.com]

Ramón,

Wow... One question, for educational purposes: could you, please, mention your sources? I'd really like to read this (and, if available, any other similar) story complete and be able to mention the publication when asked. TIA!

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Thomas,
<dope slap> Symbol...of course!!

Alexander,
I've known Ramón for some time in these forums. He just makes up this stuff. <r&d> Actually, Ramón's post sounds pretty much on target. You may be able to get some source information from Apple, Linotype and Adobe archives.

Neil

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Alex,

I'm more than three decades removed from the world of academia and I don't intend to write a paper on this. This is information I have gathered over the years from a multitude of sources, including books and conversations with folks that know a lot more about typography, type design and computers than I do.

Typography is only a secondary hobby to me, but one that I have indulged in since the 1950's, when a page from the original Gutenberg bible serendipituously came into my hands (I sold it at auction years later in order to buy a horse --such are the vagaries of life). I do have quite a number of books and magazines on type design and typography, and it's more than likely that at least some of that information is there, but I can't tell you off the top of my head what parts of the information is in which book.

A lot of that information has been discussed publicly by others.

At one point years ago (early and mid 90's) , I discussed this over the phone at length and in many phone calls with the late Richard Ware, a type designer who was one of the founders of CasadyWare, a type foundry and software development company which later became Casady & Greene --and ultimately went out of business in July of 2003. Though I never met Richard in person, we worked closely on the design of some of his Cyrillic type faces, sending each other drawings and corrections back and forth between his home in Arizona and mine in California by FedEx. There was limited email traffic back then. I understand he died shortly thereafter.

Richard was the designer of many of the typefaces of their Fluent Laser Fonts collection, and the sole designer of the Cyrillic typeface package that contained Glasnost', Cyrillic Garamond, a version of Cyrillic Times called simply Cyrillic, Murmansk and Odessa. Beside the substantial input I had on the design of many of the characters in his Cyrillic font package, our collaboration also led to his redrawing the German Es-Zet character (ß) in all of his non-Cyrillic faces. That character is a pet peeve of mine in typefaces like Times, Bookman, Goudy Old Style, etc., because it's the result of a total misunderstanding of that glyph, which is really the result of a ligature formed by a long 's' and a regular one. See the admirable drawing of this character in any of Hermann Zapf's typefaces, for instance.

The subject of our common dislike of Times, Helvetica and Courier came up often in my conversation with Richard Ware and the introduction of desktop laser printing was fresh in many people's minds at the time. He also brought other folks into our discussions in various conference calls.

I understand that Richard Ware's typefaces were ultimately pulled from the market because of copyrights disputes with the beneficiaries of his estate.

That's honestly the best I can do to explain my "sources ".

Ramón

[Alexander_Kogan.@adobeforums.com]

Neil,

I didn't noticed your last post. Thanks for the info (and for the info) ;)

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Neil is correct, not in that I would just make stuff up >:(, but in pointing out that you can research and confirm the history of those three typefaces as I described it above in any number of typographical publications and online documents, including Adobe's. As a matter of fact, if you have access to issues of Adobe's lamented Font and Function, that should be required reading.

;>

[Alexander_Kogan.@adobeforums.com]

Thanks a lot, Ramón, it is very helpful information in spite of it apparent vagueness, cause it means that I can refer to you as the source of it, and as a newbie in the typography world, I'll be honored to do it :)

Cheers!

[Alexander_Kogan.@adobeforums.com]

Font and Function... I'll look for it, thanks again!

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Alexander,

As Ramón comments, Font and Function was one heck of a magazine. It used to be comped to those of us who bought and registered certain Adobe apps. AFAIK, it just became economically impractical to continue publication. The title was widely distributed, and you should be able to dig up copies.

Neil

[Tra...@adobeforums.com]

Font and Function? I must've missed that. But I miss a lot of things.

I always assumed Courier was chosen just because it was so ugly, having it substitute for a missing or errant font assured the proofreader of catching it. Now I see that I was wrong in this assumption.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

I always assumed Courier was chosen just because it was so ugly

That works too, Trajan. :D

[Dominic...@adobeforums.com]

Ramon, am I right in taking from your post that the type on typewriters' type bars was cast by type foundries? I've never considered the issue before, but if I had, I would have assumed that the typewriter companies made their own type. Or do you just mean that the typewriter manfacturers licensed Courier from the foundries and cast their own type?

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Dominic,

Obviously I can't categorically state that not a single typewriter manufacturer had its own metal type casting operation. I don't know that. But, yes, a lot of type was sold to typewriter manufacturers by traditional metal type foundries. It's only natural, if you think about it.

[Tra...@adobeforums.com]

Funny thing, I used a typewriter for years with Courier and it never bothered me. Seeing the same face coming off an imagesetter or laser printer horrified me. It should have gone out with the typewriter...

Amusing anecdote: have any of you ever had a client who DELIBERATELY used Courier? I did, recently. Some high school kids doing a cutting edge lit mag. I couldn't stop laughing, so they changed the font.

[Dominic...@adobeforums.com]

Apologies for my accidental double post. Feel free to delete this one.

[Dominic...@adobeforums.com]

As you say, when you think about it, it is natural enough that the type came from foundries. But then again, I could have quite believed that, back in the heyday of typewriter production, at least some of the manufacturers would have done their own casting. Back then, the tendering out of operations was not as big a thing as it is now. For example, I read of a fountain pen company that used to have its own gold smelting operation for its nibs.

It's also a while since I've looked at a typewriter closely. I couldn't say whether the type and bar were created as one piece (which does, however, seem unlikely) or how the flasher golfball-style arrangements were put together.

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Hmmmm....

I was always under the assumption that in the chicken-and-egg department, the typewriter manufacturers came first. That is, they developed their own proprietary typefaces. Remington, L.C. Smith, Corona, Royal, etc. generally used fonts that were distinctive to that manufacturer, generally to standard monospace pica (10-pitch or characters/inch) or smaller elite (12-pitch).

Then demand developed for the type foundries to mimic typewriter fonts so that letterpress and offset jobs could typeset letters and other documents to look like they were generated individually by a real office typewriter. They were more perceived as more believable and business-like that way. For example, think testimonials with signatures.

Later, after IBM invented the bouncing, interchangeable golfball heads, and then when daisywheel machines were developed, all using crisp mylar ribbons rather than coarse cloth ones, there was a trend in the opposite direction, pre-PC, where the machines attempted to mimic metal typesetting. Some of these electric typewriters could even be rigged to early home computers to give better typeset output than the ubiquitous dot-matrix printers. Around 1983 or '84, I had an Olivetti Praxis 42(?) daisywheel machine that I interfaced with my new Apple //e computer. It was just amazing to watch that typewriter crank out page after page of my word processing, quickly and accurately, without a single key on its keyboard moving. The result looked similar to expensive typeshop proofs.

Neil

[Tra...@adobeforums.com]

The original four typefaces in PostScript were Times, Helvetica, Courier and Symbol (13 fonts).

Surely Warnock, whose good taste is legendary, was not party to this abortion? I mean, WHO specifically justified the use of Courier?

[gato...@adobeforums.com]

So is there a 'solution' or right direction to promote then?

Is it getting back to the education of designers and the public?

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Oh, sure, the typewriter manufacturers were the ones that came up with their designs, I agree with that. (What self-respecting type foundry would have come up with designs like those?)

Whether they had the production facilities or the inclination to cut the type themselves is a different story.

Maybe Thomas or other gurus at Adobe can investigate whether any of the big foundries had significant revenues from this.

If I remember correctly, Courier was designed first in-house at IBM by Howard Kettle as per the parameters given to him (the ones I mentioned in my post), and much later re-drawn by none other than Adrian Frutiger for use on the IBM Selectric line of typewriters. The original version by Kettler was outsourced to foundries, although now I'm not sure if that was for IBM or other typewriter manufacturers.

It's not fresh in my memory any longer, as it's hardly a topic that comes up any more. How did we get tangled up in this web?

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

How did we get tangled up in this web?

Ramón -- which "web" definition are you referring to? <vbg>

From what I know, typewriter manufacturers, as in so many industries, may have outsourced the manufacture of components of their machines; except that it was a far less common occurrence 100 years ago or so when typewriters were being introduced to the workplace.

Neil

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

... better to use Helvetica than a bunch of inappropriate fonts...

Well, it's better to show up at a formal black-tie affair wearing jeans and a T-shirt than in your underwear, but that doesn't make it a good choice.

Why would anyone have to choose between the lesser of two evils in this day and age?

[lu...@adobeforums.com]

I'm rather late into this discussion... Most times that I have been requested to use Helvetica is because "that's what has always been used" in the client's ads. I actually was able to use Impact for a headline (the ad was for industrial screws - not meant to be vulgar folks)- talk about rocking the boat;)... To me, I cringe at Brush Script.

I also agree with the idea - better to use Helvetica than a bunch of inappropriate fonts (inappropriate to the context in which it's being used). In the May 2003 issue of Before & After magazine, they had a little blurb on page 7 that showed a project of a 4" x 2" mailing label - to use one typeface, only uppercase, black on white, with no art. That I thought was a neat little idea to force people back to the basic of basics.

I'm going to check out the Font & Function book... thanks for suggesting that.

[Alexander_Kogan.@adobeforums.com]

...To me, I cringe at Brush Script.

Yuck!... Nevertheless, it's interesting how the psychology of people that know nothing about typography works. I've had a client once that needed an embroidery tag for his workers' uniform. He brings me a paper (a company blank, actually) which has a logo (two words) made with mechanically compressed Staccato222. I frown and say that they might as well think about changing the logo and he says that he doesn't really mind, but he doesn't exactly need a logo, just a two words tag for the uniform.

For his next visit I prepare a 3 variants set of tags, using somewhat appropriate typefaces, justified, with balanced space, without torturing type and such. He comes, looks, listens for me explaining the functionality of the things and says: "...They are great. Do you have some other letter type?"

I offer him the previews of everything I have available in the embroidery type library. He stops me two times: once on Comic Sans and the second - on Brush Script. "This one! - he cries out with visible excitement, - That's exactly what I want!"

I search in my bag and offer him a couple of tire sales fliers they'd thrown into my car's window that morning, both of them containing captions in Brush Script. "You'll find this font on every lamp post in the street, offering you a room uptown or a 5 years old sewing machine for half price." But he insists: "Couldn't care less, that's exactly what I want."

I had to embroider a hundred of t-shirts, with the logo changed from the horrible Staccato to the dreadful Brush Script. Well, at least it wasn't mechanically compressed.

[George_...@adobeforums.com]

Just for the record:
Apple in early 1985 was in the market with (the remnants of ill-fate Lisa) a MacIntosh machine. They also had a LaserWriter printer and no fonts to print. So they struck a deal with Linotype GmbH-Eschborn getting the full Linotype fonts Library (proprietary digitised fonts) to re-encode for Postscript. The deal was a kill for Apple (as it proved soon) since Linotype was to pay royalties back to Apple for their fonts in Postscript encoding. In return Linotype was getting MacIntosh machines as front-ends to their back-end imagesetter.

Linotype already had a laser capstan imagesetter called Linotronic 300 since 1983 running their proprietary CORA V language doing just galley mode pages, so they had a deal with Adobe getting postscript licensing agreements (actually a hardware Postscript interpreter - RIP) that they installed in their machine. They also got from Apple their re-digitised fonts and the ball was rolling (what we know as DTP today is Adobe+Apple+Linotype)

Helvetica (C) family was among the fonts of that Linotype library.

George

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

George,

In the mid-1980s, I worked as art director for a financial printer (actually, a financial print broker -- the company didn't actually own the press equipment or the typographer they contracted work to).

I had an Apple //e computer at the time (384KB RAM, no hard drive, two full-height 176KB-capacity floppy drives, 13" green-screen Apple III monitor) and used "Word Juggler" word processing software from Quark (yep, the same company you think it is) to create documents that were saved onto 5.25" floppies, turned over to our captive typographer, who ran out repros for me via his Linotronic 300s.

About all I could do was provide the ASCII text, so (as I recall) I still had to give him a marked up printout from my ImageWriter dot matrix printer or Olivetti Praxis typewriter (also connected to my computer). All of the typographer's fonts were Adobe PostScript format from the Linotype library, with one font family fitting onto each 8"(!!) floppy. It was a very impressive (and expensive) collection. So, Apple/Adobe/Linotype.

BTW, the first Macintosh was in 1984 (remember the groundbreaking commercial!) and I was already concerned that my Apple //e's days were numbered -- all a real concern, considering I had recently invested some $3000 in that computer, its peripherals and software.

Neil

[Chuck_...@adobeforums.com]

Hi, folks.

One more piece of nostalgia: I wrote/typeset/drew a manual on a Xerox Star system. The Lisa was a copy of the Star, which Xerox never managed to market effectively--true of many of the products of its Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). First laser printer I had ever seen, first GUI, first graphics package or word processing package with anything vaguely like layout capabilities. And this was when Wang ruled the business world.

Chuck

[Just_A_...@adobeforums.com]

Personally, Helvetica does not bother me that much... As I said it is the White Bread of fonts...

The worst over used font I cringe at is Futura... By far the most overused "Whorey" Retail screaming banner, popping, starburst filling font to clog a newspaper...

I think a law should be enacted to enable Capital Punishment to any one setting "Pay NO Tax for 6 month" or "Sale Ends Soon" in Futura Extra Bold...

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

JAMG,

Well it's unfortunate that Futura has been so abused. When properly used, it is an extremely good type family for both text and heads. Even XBF. OK, I'm not too fond of the condensed versions.

Neil

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

JAMG,

Your analogy is appropriate. Sliced "white bread" (as in Wonder Bread) is the pits.

[George_...@adobeforums.com]

Neil, you put it nicely.
Then you wrote "So, Apple/Adobe/Linotype."
It was Apple already there with Apple//e (I was subscriber at Byte magazine at the time and still have the original first 13 issues - #1 to #13 where ads of Apple were often). I believe Adobe was founded in early 1983 (later than Apple), while Linotype was there right from the beggining - hot metal as Mergenthaler-Linotype in Welsboro,Mass).

I was working for Linotype from 1980 to 1985 and I know they got the license from Adobe late 1984 for Postscript L1 RIP. I have been retrofitting hardware RIP processors in Linotronic 300 machines in 1985. The first Linotronic I 've seen was in 1983 but that was not Postscript, it was a CORA V machine. Then the first MacIntosh I 've seen alive was in 1985 in an exhibition.
So I guess you are right in the order, though it could have been, Linotype/Apple/Adobe historically. Actually it is Adobe/Apple/Linotype, in order of importance, since without postscript there would be no DTP as we know of today. (Remember GEM from Digital Research, originator of CP/M 80 competitor to DOS?)

Then you wrote : "BTW, the first Macintosh was in 1984 (remember the groundbreaking commercial!)". We in Europe were always a little behind schedule (this for the time lapse).

Another notice is the popularity and length of this thread. This only proves the popularity of Helvetica font!!! I believe it well deserves it. In large size it's even better (always mesmerizing)

George

[gato...@adobeforums.com]

Futura bashing now...

Familiarity breeds contempt heh?

[Just_A_...@adobeforums.com]

I don't think Futura is very pretty.... but any font, no matter how lovely... an be overused to death...

Hands up anyone who thinks grunge fonts are good design....

Temporarily fashionable does not make some thing good...
Great design lasts for decades...

[Thomas_...@adobeforums.com]

The relationship between type foundries and typewriter manufacturers mostly went the other way, especially for the first 50+ years of typewriters. The typewriters could (mostly) only use monospaced fonts, and the vendors designed their own. Type foundries made monospaced fonts, but mostly in imitation of the typewriter styles.

It wasn't quite this simple, of course, and there were a fair number of specific instances of licensing back and forth. As typewriters got more sophisticated (especially with the real tech surge of the 80s), licensing of foundry font designs became more common. Attempts to adapt foundry designs to typewriters go back much further, of course. There was even an adaptation of Centaur for a typewriter decades earlier! I don't know that it ever achieved significant use, though.

Cheers,

T

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

In large size it's [Helvetica] even better (always mesmerizing)

In that respect I fully agree with George. The closer you get to signage, the more acceptable Helvetica is.

[George_...@adobeforums.com]

Ramon,

I still remember the first time type got me overwhelmed. Standing at close range in front of a very large sign with Helvetica lettering 20 inches height, that was about to be erected in front of a store.
I was 8 years old (a long time ago) and was standing at gaze, amazed by the graceful curves of the design. I didn't realize I was not standing on the side way of the road, till hearing the brakes of the car started me running. Very powerful type this Helvetica <LOL>

George

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

George,

Now they have to add "hazardous to your health when standing in the middle of the road" warnings to the ReadMe files distributed with Helvetica.

[George_...@adobeforums.com]

Ramon thanks for the laugh. A must at this late hour (half past 11p.m. here).

Yes, that was my first acquaintance with Helvetica <LOL>. So later I decided to meet other fonts as well, trying to forget this first one.
This is how I got myself trapped in this business <LOL>

George

[gato...@adobeforums.com]

Personally, I think Helvetica works at around the 24-72 point sizes, for heading, etc. For anything bigger (moving into signage) I definitely prefer Frutiger. Also got a soft spot for Syntax and Metro.

It's interesting that some people find Helvetica so unreadable. You see a lot of Helvetica in body text sizes, and whilst I don't use this myself (I'll take minion thanks) I've never had trouble reading it. Wouldn't want to read a book of it, but a page or two, no problems.

[Victor...@adobeforums.com]

I have to say, I'm pretty impressed with Georgia on webpages -- a noticeable number of typographic sites seem to use it too, to good effect. (Especially with a gray just a touch lighter than black, perhaps #333 or even #666?)

I felt the same way as Don for a while, though I found Verdana was better at smaller sizes, Arial at larger ones.

Victor

[Don_Mc...@adobeforums.com]

It's funny, but we have all been speaking from the print perspective. To throw a wrench into the monkey (??) I'll ask about web use of Helvetica (or sans in general, since it is hard to specify fonts on the WWW).

I find sans easier to read ... serifs are distracting in the small sizes on the web. I note John C., the designer of this page (I think), seems to agree. I generally specify Arial, Helvetica, sans serif for text fonts on web pages, but would almost always choose a serif face for print.

[George_...@adobeforums.com]

Hi Don,
I would like to throw another wrench now. We all have been speaking about Helvetica from the print perspective.

But given the ability of today's layout programs to deform type, I would like to know what the list thinks about scaling and distortion of type. I 've seen extremes like horizontal scaling down to 50% of Helvetica. The answer I got was "I think it's too round a shape anyway", not observing that horizontal and vertical stems become out of proportion and the form is severely distorted along.

I ask for your opinion about free distortion of type beyond the designer's intent. Besides aesthetics, how can we call Helvetica (C) something else than the original (copyrighted) design? How can we call Pepsi-Cola(C) a Coca-Cola(C), even if they serve the same purpose (quenching thirst)?

George

[Alan_S...@adobeforums.com]

Remember GEM from Digital Research

I use it on a daily basis. Ventura 3 GEM, in a DOS box under Win 98. Lays out 400 page books in seconds, output to PS, distill to PDF, and upload to(offset press) printer. Tried the Windows version, but it lacked flexibility and hackability. Dealing with graphics is a bit tedious though, but save out of Photoshop as EPS works. One day I'll give ID a try.

[George_...@adobeforums.com]

Alan, that's amazing. I wouldn't think one is still used. I still have the original boxed product (from Xerox) and never thought of opening it up again. Maybe I could use it again.
Then this relates to my previous post #59. I remember many people didn't like it (and changed to quark 3.3) because it couldn't scale fonts. (No TTF vectored fonts)
But effective it was and 'super fast'. We were running Ventura 3 at that time (1993) on a i386/33Mhz CPU <LOL> and books of 1000 pages were a snap.

George

[Thomas_...@adobeforums.com]

From my POV, I think both Helvetica and Arial are singularly unsuited to Web use. Even though Arial is superhinted, for both typefaces the design and spacing are not well suited to low res (text sizes on screen, or low point sizes in print).

Verdana and Georgia are nice on screen at common text sizes. So are Myriad Web and Minion Web, though you can't count on them being present on end user computers.

Trivia fact: The design for Minion Web was taken from an instance of Minion MM optimized for usage at 4 point in print.

Regards,

T

[Gene Trujillo]

So are Myriad Web and Minion Web, though you can't count on them being
present on end user computers.

Am I wrong in thinking they were bundled with a browser once? Maybe a version 4 browser?

[Thomas_...@adobeforums.com]

Yes, Minion Web regular (but not the bold or italic) was briefly bundled with Microsoft Internet Explorer.

T

[Dominic...@adobeforums.com]

The design for Minion Web was taken from an instance of Minion MM optimized for usage at 4 point in print.

Was this an inhouse generated instance? Using MM fonts on Windows (I still use Minion and Cronos MM every day), ATM doesn't let you specify a smaller instance than 6pt for Minion (and Cronos). I assumed the 6pt design was at the very end of the optical axis.

[Don_Mc...@adobeforums.com]

I tend to avoid Georgia and Verdana for web pages because Helvetica or Arial are the default sans fonts on most browsers. The first two fonts have a rather larger set size and as a result, if that font is not present, then the text on the page can wind up unbearably small for a user.

[Guy_S...@adobeforums.com]

"It's interesting that some people find Helvetica so unreadable. You see a lot of Helvetica in body text sizes, and whilst I don't use this myself (I'll take minion thanks) I've never had trouble reading it. Wouldn't want to read a book of it, but a page or two, no problems."

Cell Press--an extremely well respected publisher of peer-reviewed biomedical research--uses Helvetica as body text for all of its journals.

<http://www.cell.com>

"Verdana and Georgia are nice on screen at common text sizes."

I really like Tahoma for screen viewing of Web pages.

[gato...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks Guy,

That's an excellent example.

"I would like to know what the list thinks about scaling and distortion of type. I 've seen extremes like horizontal scaling down to 50% of Helvetica. The answer I got was "I think it's too round a shape anyway"

I've always remembered my first typography teacher warning everyone to treat typography and imagery the same, ie do not distort the type in any way because it destroys what the designer intended. If someone wants a smaller x-height and scales down Helvetica, they're using the wrong typeface IMHO.

Designers generally (there are always exceptions) don't mess with art images (scale-wise, you aren't gonna stretch and squeeze a pic of the Mona Lisa to fix a box...) I've always been of the opinion type should be treated with the exact same respect.

Web, I definitely prefer sans-serifs onscreen, now if Macromedia Flash can only implement some decent anti-aliasing, I'd be happy. Blurry fonts in flash websites, especially at body text sizes, still one of my pet hates...

[George_...@adobeforums.com]

Gatorage,

obviously I agree with what you say about scaling and distorting type.
But then if someone has to do it for any reason (and because this is permissible by the layout software), my question is : Can we still call it by the original name (which is a copyright relating to the design), or should that be called something else. Aside the possibility of me looking 'pedantic', I believe this should be so.

When someone distorts type to a point beyond recognition, the resulting mess shouldn't be charged by name to the original designer (who had different things in mind)

thanks
George

[Thomas_...@adobeforums.com]

Dominic:

Yes, it was extrapolated just for the purpose.

T

[Don_Mc...@adobeforums.com]

I'm thinking that the reason Flash anti-aliasing is not as strong as in other programs is that it has to be handled on the fly ... that is, when text is in motion across the screen, the a-a would have to be done repetitively for the different pixel positions. This must be harder than just programming it for a static position.

That said, you would think that they could have a better a-a algorithm for text that does not move, and a fall back when it does (since text quality is not so important then).

[gato...@adobeforums.com]

And with the Flash anti-aliasing, it's not a problem with motion graphics and moving text, it is definitely just static text that I thought should have improved in quality by now. A photoshop style approach with multiple aa options would be a good idea.

And whilst I'm at it, getting back to the issue of overusing Helvetica, with it permeating the web now and overused in print, what are possible solutions in getting designers to slowly? move away from choosing it? Educate the public? Educate designers better? Outlaw Helvetica? ;)

[gato...@adobeforums.com]

As a general rule, I think as soon as you distort a typeface by more than 10% dis-proportionally, it cannot still be considered the original designer's work.

I haven't had to distort a typeface in a long time for any reason, and when you take into account the multitude of options like size, kerning, tracking, leading, etc normally there is another way around the problem. But agreed, there are always exceptions to the rule.

What do other people think? How often have other people actually come across a situation where distorting the typeface was the only solution?

[Dominic...@adobeforums.com]

Re distorting typefaces, I see several issues. First, copyright varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but I gather the general rule is that the programming involved in digital typefaces is copyrighted, not the actual letterforms themselves (Thomas will be able to help here). So, I would imagine disorting the typeface in a DTP or graphics app is just an instance of using the software, so no copyright infringement would be involved.

As for the design of the letterforms, copyright law often allows for artists's moral rights, so an artist can object to derogatory treatment of their work, even if they no longer own it. However, even if a type designer had copyright for letterforms, I would imagine it would be hard to prove distorting type was derogatory treatment (indeed, under the NZ Copyright Act, the designer of a typeface cannot object to derogatory treatment of a typeface). Leaving that to one side, I don't see a case for changing the name when a typeface has been distorted. If anything, that would be copyright infringement - varying a face a bit and giving it a new name. A more interesting case would arise if a face were so distorted that no one could recognise its origin. But, morally, if not legally, the designer should still indicate the source (ie, leave the name as is or amend it to something appropriate - "Garamond Distorted").

How often have other people actually come across a situation where distorting the typeface was the only solution?

Solution to what? If you mean using glyph scaling to meet word spacing limits in justified text, then I'm not one who does it. Though if the glyph scaling were more akin to MM fonts (as opposed to how ID handles it), I might re-examine the issue.

[George_...@adobeforums.com]

Just for the record:

Helvetica
Edouard Hoffmann saw this typeface as an improvement on the late nineteenth century Berthold Gothic, Akzidenz Grotesk. Hoffmann, director of the Haas Typefoundry, specified the design; Max Miedinger drew it under his guidance.
It was initially released as the Haas Neue Grotesk; the name Helvetica was applied four years later by Walter Cunz when D. Stempel AG, a major stockholder in Haas, reworked the design for Linotype GmbH in Frankfurt, a major stockholder in Stempel. The Mergenthaler Linotype Company in New York, then a major stockholder of Linotype GmbH, adopted the design, and it rapidly became the most popular sanserif in the world, replacing Futura.

Helvetica is designed as a strong central series, with condensed and extended forms and extreme weights adapted and added later, a system that suited Linotype mechanical limitations and marketing philosophy. By contrast, in Univers Adrian Frutiger related all versions closely, limiting the design of the central fonts to match the extreme forms for a series so uniform that any member may be used closely with any other.

Linotype’s limited licensing has forced a large number of unauthorized copies of Helvetica, none of which may be viewed as an improvement. Helvetica and Times New Roman are the two most popular typefaces in use today; both were collaborations, with one person directing and another drawing; both were originally named for their use, the ‘New Haas Grotesk’ and ‘The Times New Roman’.

Then:

Helvetica
Some words from the foundry...

With the name Helvetica (Latin for Swiss), this font has the objective and functional style which was associated with Swiss typography in the 1950s and 1960s. It is perfect for international correspondence: no ornament, no emotion, just clear presentation of information. Helvetica is still one of the best selling sans-serif fonts.

Thanks
George

[Tra...@adobeforums.com]

I still prefer Berthold Gothic. But I'm just a 19th Century type of guy.

This has come up before, but what is the correct pronunciation of "Neue"? I never get that right.

"Helvetica" means "Swiss" in Latin? I didn't know that.

[Victor...@adobeforums.com]

Noy' uh. (Rhymes with 'Goya')

Victor

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Noy' uh. (Rhymes with 'Goya')

Typical Anglo-Saxon mispronunciation of the German language. (Aber das erwartet man sowieso.)

Neue DOES NOT Rhyme with Goya. Neither does Porsche.

The last 'e' is like the sound of the 'e' in the word 'bed', except it's longer and you pull the corners of your mouth all the way back when saying it.

[Marilyn_...@adobeforums.com]

The French for Swiss Confederation is Confedération helvétique. Confoederatio Helvetica (CH) is Latin for Swiss Confederation.

[Victor...@adobeforums.com]

Typical Anglo-Saxon mispronunciation of the German language. (Aber das
erwartet man sowieso.)

And answered with characteristic swagger. Unfortunately one does expect it.

Victor

[George_...@adobeforums.com]

Just for the record:

Hel暇e暗ia
An ancient region of central Europe occupying a plateau between the Alps and the Jura Mountains. It was named by the Romans for its predominantly Celtic inhabitants. Helvetia corresponded roughly to the western part of modern Switzerland, and the name is still used poetically.

Helvetia besides used poetically for Switzerland, is the name of the country in Greek. Helvetica consequently in Greek means : of Helvetian origin i.e. Swiss

George

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Sorry you feel that way, Victor; but you may be right.

[Tra...@adobeforums.com]

At least Helvetica has an interesting name. Unfortunately, that's the only thing interesting about it.

OK, OK, I admit, it's really not that bad. Even I use it occasionally.

Regarding the argument that Helvetica has triumphed because of its "functionality" and "clean lines"...I believe in form over functionality, in many cases. If you look at virtually any ephemera from the 19th Century or early 20th, something as mundane as, say, a laundry receipt, invariably it is filled with ornate capitals, shaded initials, and so forth. Decorative type abounds. There was no thought of, "This is a purely functional receipt, ergo, we must use an ordinary sans serif font." What in the world is "antiquated" about using decorative and shaded fonts on "functional" paper?

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Neue = new

Ramón, my German is far from more than rudimentary, but I would pronounce "neue" closer to "noy' yeh".

Aber das erwartet man sowieso. = but we were waiting for this anyway.

Am I close?

Neil

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Neil,

I would pronounce "neue" closer to "noy' yeh".

Your pronunciation would be a lot more accurate. There's no 'uh' sound in German or in any other language with which I'm familiar. It's one of the toughest things to learn when learning English precisely because it's so characteristic of American English in particular, and to a slightly lesser degree British English also, at least to my ears. I still miss the mark with the production of the 'uh' sound often.

Your translation, on the other hand, misses the true meaning of the verb 'erwarten', to expect, rather than 'warten', as in 'auf jemanden warten', to wait for someone. Victor was right on point in his paraphrase, as is to be expected from an academician who translates highly specialized articles.

Ramón

[George_...@adobeforums.com]

A way off question for Ramon,

Following Carlos Castaneda's (the famous writer) family name, is Castaneda (as a family name in the Spanish speaking world) common of the enlightened (academicians, writers, philosophers e.tc.)?
And what might be the direct translation of the name in English?

thanks
George

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

George,

[Way off topic.]

Castańeda is a township or "four-town municipality" in Cantabria, Spain, most noted for a spectacular Romanic collegiate church in Santa Cruz de Castańeda. The term itself is an archaic word meaning "chestnut grove".

The Castańeda surname is considerably more common in some areas of The Americas than in Spain because a Spanish Infantry captain from this general area (specifically the town of Alońos) came to serve the Spanish crown in New Spain in the first half of the 18th century as a judge and mayor of Mexico City and later western Mexico (Nueva Galicia), and he and his descendants were charged with the administration of vast regions of land throughout the entire empire, from present day California to Peru. It was a common practice for the natives to take the surname of prominent benefactors or protectors.

Carlos Castańeda is hardly known in the Spanish speaking world. Since a lot of folks kept asking me if I was related to the writer when I first arrived in the US 27 years ago, I bought a couple of his books but didn't read beyond the first couple of chapters of the first and only one I tackled.

You must have in mind the family of the noted scholars and politicians by the name of Jorge Castańeda, father and son, in Mexico. They are also in no way related to the writer Carlos Castańeda.

Ramón

[George_...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks Ramon. Very interesting post (to me). One very fascinating thing is what you wrote : "The term itself is an archaic word meaning "chestnut grove".

The Greek word for chestnut tree is "Castania" and then we have the name of the color "Castanos" that is the color of chestnut. Interpreting "Castaneda" in Greek means "an area full of Castanies" i.e. "an area full of chestnut trees" i.e "a chestnut grove". Thus my reason for asking, to make sure.

Everything is somehow knitted together in this global village. Interesting.

George

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

And the Norwegian word for lox (smoked salmon) is laks. Go figure.

Neil

[Gene Trujillo]

Since we've drifted to the subject...

Castańeda is a township or "four-town municipality" in Cantabria, Spain,
most noted for a spectacular Romanic collegiate church in Santa Cruz de
Castańeda.

Similarly, Trujillo is the name of a city in western spain (Estremadura). As I understand it, it is a corruption of "Torre Julia" -- Tower of Julius -- because it was founded by Julius Caesar. The conquistador Pizarro was from Trujillo.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Neil,

"Lachs" is the German word for salmon --live, smoked or otherwise-- hence the Yiddish "lox". I wouldn't be surprised if 'laks' is the Norwegian word for salmon generically too.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Gene,

Trujillo, in the Spanish province of Cáceres, within the larger region of Extremadura, claims a history of over three thousand years, and its name predates Julius Caesar by about a millennium.

The name is derived from the name given by Ligurians and Cempsis to the hill on which it was built, Turaca, which evolved through phonetic influences of the Romans into Turgalium, then the Muslims turned it into Taryala, and in the Middle Ages was known as Truxiello. Truxiello eventualy turned into Trujillo.

Here's their official web page:

<http://www.ayto-trujillo.com/web/inicio.htm>

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

Ramón,

I reread my post. Actually, laks = salmon, in Norwegian. My mind just did a shortcut and did the lox as smoked salmon thing...

Neil
[...who wasn't accepted as a simultaneous translator at the U.N.)

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Neil,

[...who wasn't accepted as a simultaneous translator at the U. N.]

The U. N. doesn't do Norwegian. :)

Mandarin Chinese, Spanish, English, Russian, French and now Arabic are the only official languages at the U. N. In the interpreting and translation professions, the two terms are used as 'terms of art', one interprets a verbal message and translates a written document. Therefore, there's no such thing as a "simultaneous translator". So you have plenty of company as someone who wasn't accepted as a simultaneous translator at the U. N. :)

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

George,

Oh yes, we can't deny that we in Western Civilization are the disciples of the Greeks and the Hebrews, even as far as the alphabet, from the Hebrew aleph, beth, gamel...

The Spanish word for chestnut is castaña, the chestnut tree is castaño, as is the color (except in reference to horses, where the term is alazán), and the modern word for chestnut grove is castañar.

[Gene Trujillo]

Ramón,

Thank you for that wonderful information! Some of my family traveled there a couple of years ago but learned far less than what you told me.

Gene

[Neil_...@adobeforums.com]

So much for Norwegian. <lol>

Neil

[Marilyn_...@adobeforums.com]

And how about castanets? I only know the English, so please, what is the Spanish original? They do look a little like large clackable chesnuts.